Essay on 'Democracy and Education' Summary

Is Dewey’s (1916) Democracy and Education still relevant in context with the current National curriculum?’ (Hopkins 2018) This is the question that Hopkins (2018) asks throughout this article. Hopkins is a unit leader in the philosophy of education at the University of Bedfordshire, and his argument progresses by looking at three main themes. Firstly, how Dewey’s (1916) publication applies to current issues within Primary and Secondary schools. Secondly, if Dewey’s (1916) ideas connect to fundamental British values (FBV) and how pupil voice can feature within this. Finally, the insights Dewey’s (1916) work has provided on both the academic and vocational divide.

In this critique we will unpick Hopkins's (2018) ideas around the relevance of ‘Dewey’s democracy and education’ (Dewey 1916) and its bearing today with particular reference to FBV, also touching on pupil voice. Certainly, Hopkins's (2018) article does appear to claim that Dewey’s (1916) ideas on democracy and pupil voice are extremely relevant one hundred years on, however, he looks at how democracy fits into the national curriculum and it could be argued that his portrayal of this is fairly one-sided with little reference to counter opinion. Another key factor is that even though this article is less than two years old, a huge amount of change has occurred within the education sector during this time which challenges just how relevant Hopkins's (2018) paper is, over and above the relevance of Dewey (1916).

Hopkins (2018) leads with Dewey’s (1916) argument that an education system can't be controlled by the state because a state-controlled education addresses what is needed for the nation but not for the individuals within it. Certainly, this is an interesting point and historically does carry credence, however, since the publication of this journal, we have seen the implementation of the new Ofsted framework which in a recent speech (21 Sept 2018) Ofsted’s Chief Inspector, Amanda Spielman stated that Ofsted recognizes the importance of schools’ autonomy to choose their curriculum approaches. Spielmans’ (2018) words challenge Dewey’s (1916) argument as whilst an education framework is being provided, schools and practitioners are now being encouraged to adapt this to best suit their school setting and children.

Hopkins (2018) links Dewey’s (1916) issues with state-controlled education to the introduction of Fundamental British Values and PREVENT within the National Curriculum in 2014. Hopkins (2018) argues that the FBV curriculum was created with limited consultation into what it means to be British, again relating to the motivation of the state providing the basis of this education (Dewey 1916). But what Hopkins (2018) does not appear to be mindful of is that the framework provides the ability for every child to receive the same basic educational entitlement, along with a structure that allows differentiative learning for all pupils (Lewis 2002). Add to this the evidence that has shown a lack of framework can have negative results such as students acquiring misconceptions, (Kirschner, Sweller & Clark 2006) then it could be argued that the Government providing the framework for what should be taught also limits opportunity for learners receiving inappropriate education and possibly more biased opinion of highly sensitive subjects.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

Hopkins (2018) does not consider the benefits of a framework at any point but instead references the fact that Dewey (1916) would be skeptical of the introduction of SBV in light of who the values are for – nation or individual. The May 2019 edition of Ofsted The Education Inspection Framework, discusses that FBV prepares learners for life in modern Britain in a variety of ways including how to contribute to society, understand diversity, and draw on the knowledge and cultural capital they need to succeed in life. If we again look at the changes to the Ofsted framework it could be argued that FBV provides a framework that schools and education practitioners use to encourage Dewey's (1916) ‘intelligent action’ by inspiring people to have a personal interest in the subject matter and respect the viewpoint of others along with creating opportunities for social involvement.

Hopkins (2018) did not have this context when he wrote his journal in March 2018 as the new Ofsted guidelines were not created till later that year however he could have referenced the 2013 National Curriculum in England Framework which states that as part of the curriculum, every state-funded school must prepare pupils for opportunities, responsibilities, and experiences of later life. Based on the evidence we now have from Ofsted (2018) and The National Curriculum (2013) we could now challenge the relevance of Hopkins's (2018) theory that Dewey (1916) would be skeptical of the FBV curriculum and offer a counter-argument that FBV is a vehicle for ‘Intelligent action’. Expanding this point further, Garratt (2000) discusses the importance of understanding and accepting that children enter school with contrasting sets of cultural and gendered expectations. Garratt (2000) states that through carefully structured activities and meaningful dialogue, children can learn how different cultures work and how they contribute to their society. A much more balanced argument from Hopkins (2018) may have considered that the FBV curriculum not only allows for intelligent action but also creates the opportunity for more democracy within the school environment with teachers actively encouraging pupil voice and facilitating meaningful discussions on culture and society.

Hopkins (2018) himself likened pupil voice to Dewey’s (1916) opinion of the classroom as a place where people develop and construct knowledge so if FBV does create an opportunity for pupil's voice then this provides another contradiction to Hopkins's (2018) article. When considering that FBV can provide an opportunity for pupil voice it is then interesting to look at Pike (2007) as he discusses that how we deliver curriculum is in fact down to pedagogy and this is where the element of democracy can be included. Reflecting on Hopkins (2018) and Pike’s (2007) ideas around the implementation of FBV, one could construe that the FBV framework provides a structure to work within, not limited to what must be taught, but guidelines that are open to interpretation, and adaptable in terms of pedagogy and setting. Furthermore, if we teach British Values in this way it becomes less about what is needed to be taught but demonstrating the key characteristics required for living and contributing to society (Pike 2007). This line of thought links directly to encouraging and endorsing the Pupil voice as a key tool in delivering such elements of the curriculum. After critiquing the key points within Hopkins's (2018) article, a fair conclusion would be that many of Dewey’s (1916) ideas and beliefs are still relevant however the interpretation of them given by Hopkins (2018) about democracy within the national curriculum and FBV are not.

The main weakness of Hopkins's (2018) article is the failure to address that the 2013 National Curriculum and more recently 2018 Ofsted guidelines, both allow education professionals the ability to consider social and cultural influences relevant to the individuals within their local environment. This also allows the pedagogy to be adopted by the teachers to include more democracy and pupil voice, especially in subject areas such as FBV. There are many questions raised by this critique and certainly, areas of further research and reflection would lead to analysis of types of pedagogy within different areas of the National Curriculum and how professionals can learn, adapt, and improve their teaching within this framework.